SCB Policy Insider Spring 2009

On Tuesday afternoon, June 2nd, Speaker of the US House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi met with the key House Committee Chairmen with significant jurisdiction over elements of climate change policy, according to The Hill newspaper. She told them that the Ways and Means and Agriculture Committees would be allowed to hold mark-ups (amending sessions) of the climate change bill recently ordered reported from the Energy and Commerce Committee. Others, such as the Natural Resources Committee, before whom SCB testified in February, will not be given that opportunity but can move separate and complementary bills on their own.

Chairs of the other committees may also be given time to offer amendments on the floor of the House when a bill comes to the floor later this year, possibly in late July or early fall. Pelosi’s intention is to have as much to bring to the UN climate change negotiations in Copenhagen as possible.

Speaker Pelosi recently returned from China where, like Secretary of State Clinton in February, she discussed climate change. Several days later senior Administration officials, including the President’s science advisor, went to China to continue that discussion.

Since February, SCB has been in the process of paving the way for State Department and Energy Department officials and their Chinese counterparts to participate in a workshop that we had already planned at the SCB Global Meeting in Beijing in July on ways in which implementing wildlife law can bolster our response to climate change and conversely how climate agreements can bolster wildlife conservation. The U.S. and Chinese Governments' participation has not yet been confirmed. A representative of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) has confirmed he will be addressing our workshop. We expect to discuss a recent UNEP report on the climate change mitigation services of natural ecosystems (http://www.unep.org/pdf/BioseqRRA_scr.pdf)

In January, Green Inc., the New York Times’ environment and business blog, reported that the European Union and China had, after similar discussions, signed agreements intended to address climate change and related issues:

The Senate has been monitoring international climate talks but for now is focusing on other legislation, including electric energy transmission and renewable energy requirements, which have been somewhat weakened in recent Energy Committee action, but is essentially waiting to see what the main committees of the House approve with regard to the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions.

On March 31st, Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee Henry Waxman (Democrat from California) and Subcommittee Chairman Edward Markey, (Democrat from Massachusetts) released an incomplete draft version of their proposed climate bill, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, and a summary just over four pages long. In that draft, they noted some unexpected elements, such as the waiver of three parts of the Clean Air Act, including the requirement that major new sources of pollution use the best available control technologies for the covered pollutants. We were also concerned about the impact upon and treatment of forests, wanting to ensure a full understanding of the stresses they face given current levels of greenhouse gases and various disruptions and disjunctions.

We immediately let committee staff know of our concern about these elements and later asked to submit testimony, but we were told that no uninvited testimony would be received or recorded by the committee.

The bill covers many areas of environmental and energy policy including renewable energy requirements, energy efficiency standards, and the regulation of greenhouse gases. As noted below, Congress can and has enacted such progressive incentives and requirements in bills that did not take on the central question of capping greenhouse gas emissions. The key question is whether and to what extent these popular measures should be used as inducements for the less popular and more complex provisions setting caps on greenhouse gases and deciding whether and how to provide for trading of pollution rights.

The climate change section of the Waxman bill is intended to reduce GHG emissions to 83% below 2005 levels by 2050, and 17% by 2020, which is 4% below 1990 levels by 2020. It offers incentives for producers of energy and energy intensive products to make the transition to a clean energy economy. Unfortunately, the bill uses free permits to pollute for most of these incentives, rather than auctioning them all as most economists and President Obama have recommended and rather than directly requiring electric rate reforms to help small consumers but charge more per unit of energy used to encourage conservation.

The bill was hurried through subcommittee and full committee mark-ups after testimony from numerous utility and industrial interests and a few conservation groups. The committee made no request for public comment beyond those who were asked to testify, in contrast to Chairman Dingell, who in 2007 responded to our suggestion to his staff that he post an open letter seeking public comment. Waxman held a week of hearings in April when energy and resource producers outnumbered environmental groups and there were no scientific associations testifying.

The bill does not have universal support from the environmental and scientific community. Groups like Natural Resources Defense Council and Environmental Defense Fund are strongly in favor of the bill, while Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and others (including climate scientist James Hansen) are opposed to the bill as it stands now, on the theory that a simpler and faster reduction, such as a cap and tax, is necessary. Other groups, like Sierra Club and Union of Concerned Scientists have noted weaknesses in the bill but do not necessarily oppose it. More grassroots or broad-based organizations and think tanks from the Institute for Policy Studies to MoveOn.org to the Chesapeake Climate Action Coalition are calling on Congress to improve three or four key elements without opposing or supporting the bill yet as a whole. Other organizations, including some wildlife conservation groups, have for over two years been focused largely on obtaining a generous allocation of funds for wildlife adaptation programs in the U.S. or avoided deforestation funds for international work, worthy ends that should be provided in any case, with or without immediate progress on a cap. Some see cap and trade as the only means possible for this level of funding for direct wildlife conservation.

Most ominous is the possibility that the Endangered Species Act will be preempted by such legislation. Preemption would essentially say that the U.S. will make no direct effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or increase forest sequestration on behalf of climate sensitive endangered species than what is already required by the set schedule of reductions. The initial schedule is being determined by Congressional leaders’ own admissions, not on the basis of the best available science nor on the overall economic impact, but on the basis of what is politically possible given the membership of their committees. They may be doing their best given the knowledge, and understanding of the climate problem and the options that they have and the pressures they feel from voters and campaign contributors.

SCB has not taken an official position on the bill. SCB has submitted testimony in the past that addresses several of the issues raised by the bill, but not all, therefore the comments listed below describe areas of deep interest or concern rather than final or formal positions in this fast-moving debate. The bill has many positive elements in its more than 940 pages. SCB staff and some North American policy leaders who have studied many of the issues raised by the bill, however, have concerns with the way the bill addresses some key issues so far. These include

The American Clean Energy and Security Act and supporting documents and summaries are available on the committee website:

One of the most widely read general news magazines, the relatively conservative The Economist, has published a similar analysis:

1. Kanter, J. "China, Europe and Climate Demands." NYTimes.com 30 Jan. 2009. 9 June 2009. http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/china-europe-and-climate-demands/?scp=4&sq=china,%20europe%20and%20climate%20demands&st=Search

2. Hansen, J., Mki. Sato, P. Kharecha, D. Beerling, R. Berner, V. Masson-Delmotte, M. Pagani, M. Raymo, D.L. Royer, and J.C. Zachos, 2008: Target atmospheric CO2: Where should humanity aim? Open Atmos. Sci. J., 2, 217-231, doi:10.2174/1874282300802010217.

3. Secretary Salazar at a hearing on energy development on the outer continental shelf noted that we have the capacity to provide three times the electric energy we need from wind farms if properly sited. See also, Barrett, J., J. Hoerner, S Bernow, and B. Dougherty. 2002. “Clean Energy and Jobs: A comprehensive approach to climate change and energy policy”. ECONOMIC POLICY INSTITUTE. http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/studies_cleanenergyandjobs/

4. Hanson D., I. Mintzer, J. Laitner, and J. Leonard . 2004. “Engines of Growth: Energy Challenges, Opportunities, and Uncertainties in the 21st Century.” Argonne National Laboratory. http://www.ari.vt.edu/hydrogen/Resources/BackDoc/Doc/engines_growth.pdf

5. Environmental Protection Action (EPA). 2008. Inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 1990-2006.

6. GAO Report; “The U.S. Voluntary Market Is Growing, but Quality Assurance Poses Challenges for Market Participants” August 29, 2008.

7. See, e.g., the work of Clark, Deborah who has 28 years of data showing declines in tropical forest growth in direct relation to the increases in ambient temperature due to climate change: Clark, D.A., S.C. Piper, C.D. Keeling, and D.B. Clark. 2003. Tropical rain forest tree growth and atmospheric carbon dynamics linked to interannual temperature variation during 1984-2000. PNAS 100(10):5852-5857.

In April and May Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar made two decisions that sent mixed signals on how the Obama administration is going to enforce the Endangered Species Act.

The first step taken by Salazar was to over turn a last minute rule by the Bush administration that would have by-passed a key provision of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Bush rule would, among other changes, have allowed federal agencies to approve new projects without consulting with the expert agencies identified in the ESA concerning the potential effects of proposed actions or alternatives on endangered species. The 1986 rules for implementing section seven of the ESA required federal agencies to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service to determine, and limit if necessary, any potential impacts on endangered species and most threatened species in the U.S. or on the high seas. (The original 1979 rules required equal precaution for species listed by the U.S. no matter where they occurred. That scope was curtailed by the Reagan Administration without any underlying change in statute but remain limited to this day.)

On March 3rd, President Obama issued a memorandum requesting that all department heads ignore the Bush rule limiting consultation until the Interior and Commerce departments could conduct a thorough review. On April 28th, using a special but short-term revocation power provided by Congress, Salazar threw out the new "section 7" consultation rule, automatically restoring the 1986 rules.

In early December, SCB recommended to the Obama transition team that they overturn the Bush ruling, and we are pleased with the steps they have taken. SCB and other organizations worked hard to get Secretary Salazar to throw out the bad regulation. We attended several meetings with interior department officials to discuss the section 7 rule and a rule concerning the protections provided for the polar bear when it was listed as a threatened species due to the melting of its ice-flow habitat. SCB along with two other scientific societies sent a letter to Secretary Salazar urging him to discard both rules and replace them with stronger rules. This letter in turn was based on extensive analysis and comments developed and filed earlier in the year by staff attorneys who are also policy staff for the three scientific societies in conjunction with their scientist colleagues. The letter was released along with letters from environmental groups, an association of law professors, and members of the House and Senate at a press conference on the morning of April 28th, the same day that Salazar acted.

Some are concerned that the Secretary's decision to uphold the Bush “Section 4(d)” rule to keep that rules limits on the protections provided for polar bears is an indication that the Obama administration would prefer not to use the Endangered Species Act to regulate climate change through the listing of the threatened but not yet endangered polar bear. The listing, as it stands now, limits the ability to control causes of habitat destruction arising outside of the polar bear’s range.

While stopping the section 7 rule is an important first step, SCB is continuing to develop ways to strengthen the implementation of the ESA. Along with other members of the Endangered Species Coalition and other scientific societies, SCB is preparing comments requested by the Administration to develop new and stronger section 7 regulations.

Following up on nearly two years of cooperative efforts concerning the Northern Spotted Owl, including two sets of peer reviews, in April, SCB, The Wildlife Society, the Ornithological Council and the American Ornithologists’ Union wrote Secretary Salazar urging him to withdraw and revise both the Northern Spotted Owl Recovery Plan and the Critical Habitat Designation for the owl.

SCB is also working to make sure that any climate legislation that is passed does not limit the use of the ESA. SCB’s efforts on the Endangered Species Act are part of our larger goal of increasing scientific integrity in the federal policy process. For more information on work SCB has done to strengthen the ESA, or to keep up with the latest developments on this and other issues please visit our website www.conbio.org/policy

SCB submitted recommendations in mid-May as our part of a drive by President Obama to increase scientific integrity in the executive branch. The scientific integrity initiative was announced at an event in the White House on March 9th, attended by SCB’s Policy Chair John Fitzgerald, where President Obama issued a memorandum instructing the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to make recommendations on ways to strengthen scientific integrity throughout the Executive Branch of Government. The comments SCB submitted reemphasized and elaborated on recommendations made to the Obama transition team in December. SCB recommended that selection for scientific positions be based on the knowledge and experience of the candidate, and that federal staff should be encouraged to participate in the activities and governance of professional scientific societies. As a part of that participation SCB also recommended that federal scientists submit their major findings to peer-reviewed journals and that science and technology information should in general be made available to the public. SCB also recommended that agencies should review any science that may be compromised, disclose all potential conflicts of interest, and promote the freedom to warn about abuses of science, including giving scientific whistleblowers greater protection.

In an earlier announcement, President Obama issued another memorandum instructing the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to produce recommendations for a new executive order to improve public participation in the regulatory review process. SCB also submitted comments as a part of this process and emphasized some of the same points as in the scientific integrity memo.

Regulatory rules are only the first step to restore scientific integrity and SCB continues to be active in the process. Legislation would help to institutionalize scientific integrity reforms and some areas highlighted in these memos are being addressed by Congress. On March 12th, Representative Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) introduced a bill that strengthens whistleblower protection. The bill includes a provision allowing Federal whistleblowers to bring their claims to a U.S. District Court within 180 days if no action has been taken on the claim. SCB recommended this step in the policy recommendations we released in December and again as a part of a meeting we held with Van Hollen staffers in February.

SCB also joined with other scientific societies in sending a letter seeking further action by the Administration to ensure that federal scientists are encouraged to serve on the boards of societies.

For more information on what SCB is doing to strengthen scientific integrity, including the full text of our comments to OSTP, please visit our website www.conbio.org/policy and click on the Scientific Integrity link.

The Marine Section’s International Marine Conservation Congress Capitol Hill Day

On May 19th, SCB helped to host a day of meetings on Capitol Hill as a part of the Marine Section’s International Marine Conservation Congress (IMCC). The event brought SCB members and attendees of IMCC to Washington, D.C. for a day of advocacy training and meetings with congressional staffers. Approximately 60 people from more than 8 countries took part in the event.

The day, which was co-hosted by the Marine Conservation Biology Institute (MCBI), started with advocacy training and briefings by marine policy experts.

Charlotte de Fontaubert, a consultant with the International Union for Conservation of Nature, provided a summary of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The UNCLOS is a treaty that establishes an international framework for the management of the high seas. The US has yet to ratify the treaty despite broad based support. Bill Chandler gave a briefing on funding of marine issues. SCB’s Policy Director, John Fitzgerald, and MCBI’s Congressional Relations Manager, Kassandra Cerveny, led a brief orientation and advocacy training session.

After the orientation, the participants broke into smaller groups to attend meetings with staffers from their congressional delegations or key committees. Groups met with 10 state delegations and staff from several major committees with jurisdiction over marine issues and funding including the Senate subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard; House Natural Resources and Senate Foreign Relations Committees. A group of policy and science leaders also had lunch with Harry Upton and Lynne Corn, Congressional Research Service wildlife experts.

In all, the meetings were very successful. The meeting with the Oceans subcommittee led to a request for support for more funding for NOAA’s marine conservation programs. Inspired by these meetings with congressional staff, SCB and MCBI leaders drafted an individual sign-on letter to the Appropriations Committees requesting enhanced funding for NOAA. IMCC organizers circulated the letter for conference attendees to sign. It was delivered the week of June 2nd. While that letter was produced during the IMCC, SCB’s Marine Section and the Policy Director may soon develop a more comprehensive request for appropriations for SCB to send on behalf of the organization.

As an offshoot of our discussions concerning improving the environmental review process that the US used for World Bank projects, SCB's Policy Director was asked by NGOs to help improve similar procedures of the U.S. Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), which largely guarantees loans and investments in business projects overseas. Key concerns are limiting greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental damage from the projects. The reason OPIC environmental standards and compliance are so important is that it is one of the U.S. Government’s own agencies. According to those who follow it closely, such as the Center for International Environmental Law, it has not enforced its own guidelines and will not allow citizens who are harmed by violations of them to do so. It is also very resistant to any ban or rapid reduction of its support for projects that emit substantial amounts of greenhouse gases. It will be more difficult to ask developing nations or the World Bank to reduce their construction of highly polluting sources if we are continuing to subsidize them overseas ourselves. It is also difficult to promote the rule of law when our own agencies refuse to obey their own standards.